Marcel Massé

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to avoid another referendum is clearly to effect changes in the distinct society clause or in the right of veto, but especially changes that affect the respective powers of the federal and provincial governments.

We have already started to make these changes. They have been indicated. The federal government is now redefining its role and responsibilities. We are doing it at a lower cost to Canadians because we will be reducing the size of the federal government by 20 per cent.

[Social Programs, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, in the past two years, our government has indicated very clearly that it is upholding the Liberal tradition of supporting the most vulnerable members of our society. We are forced to do so in a context of financial and economic constraint. I feel that we have assumed our responsibilities within a responsible fiscal framework by stating in the February 1995 budget that we would continue to help the neediest in our society.

There is no question that, in order to help the most vulnerable in our society, we must overhaul our social programs to make them more effective, efficient and productive, and that is what we are doing. The changes under way to improve government will also help us convince Canadians, including Quebecers, that the Government of Canada looks after the interests of all its citizens, including Quebecers, and that it is in their interest to vote No on Monday.

[Old Age Security, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer sought by the hon. member is included in a statement made last night by the Prime Minister to Mr. Mongrain, regarding the issue of pensions. The Prime Minister said: "What I do know is that, if people vote no on Monday, all those who receive pension cheques will still get the same cheque. Some tried to make me say that I was going to cut pension cheques. I clearly said in the House of Commons that there will be no statement in November to the effect that the government is cutting pensions, and that the February budget will include no changes to old age pensions. I cannot not be any clearer than that".

This quote shows that we looked at the issue of old age pensions and that we arrived-as the Prime Minister clearly said-at a conclusion which is valid now and for next February.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the opposition is twisting my words. I said "may well be" because I do not know if the bill the hon. member is referring to even exists. However, I do know that it is only natural for us, after promising to overhaul social programs, including unemployment insurance, to be working on it.

No decision has been made so far. There is therefore nothing to say on this issue. It is clear that, as announced in the budget, a reform will take place to make the system more efficient and reduce the burden of government on Canadian taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers. We urge the Parti Quebecois to put its fiscal house in order as we did with ours in the budget we tabled in February.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working on reforming the UI program, and in fact the social security system as a whole, for the past two years. We never hid the fact that we were putting our fiscal house in order and reviewing various social policies.

Regarding unemployment insurance, we announced in the last budget exactly what our plans were, and the Prime Minister stated in this House that a bill would be produced by the end of the year. Cabinet has not approved, passed or even seen the bill, and the document referred to may well be one of the many versions of the bill that could eventually be submitted to cabinet. This is a normal

process, one that does not involve cabinet for the time being and that must follow its course.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the only people the official opposition believes are those who share their views, I will point out that, in an interview he gave at Magnan tavern this week, the Leader of the Official Opposition stated very clearly that he agreed that people from the rest of Canada could come to Montreal because, as he said, they will be affected by the referendum result.

For once, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is right, and he expressed this pride in being Canadian he had asserted so clearly in 1988. We are proud to belong to a country, a nation that is willing to give its more vulnerable parts a helping hand as a sign of friendship and solidarity.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we did not organize the rally being held in Montreal. This spontaneous rally shows that Canadians from every region in the country are concerned about what is happening in Quebec and want to show their solidarity.

I am proud to belong to a country where all parties are so concerned by the situation in Quebec that they are willing to make an effort to travel to Montreal and to clearly express their feelings

toward Canada and Quebecers. Quebecers who, like us, are federalists and want to remain part of this country feel that other Canadians are expressing clearly the feelings we have always believed in, that is to say, they are supportive of Quebec, they are with us, and they want the No side to win on Monday so that our nation can continue to help and support its citizens.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will deal with part of the hon. member's opening remarks, when he talked about the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, which was made in 1988, that is, well after the start of the Meech Lake accord debate.

Here is a quote that indicates the transparency of his statements now. When Mr. Bouchard, when the Leader of the Opposition, pardon me, spoke on Wednesday, he spoke in French and English. In French, he said: "Alliances-thanks but no thanks". A total refusal. In English, he said: "I am deeply committed to this partnership". So, once again, when opening remarks are used to deliver messages, they should not be based on the misleading appearances created.

As regards the rally currently going on in Montreal, we must remember that Canadians and Quebecers are equally proud of demonstrating their patriotism in Montreal and are doing so on their own initiative. The federal government did not organize the gathering. It was born of a desire by Canadians, inside and outside Quebec, to express their pride in Canada, and the federal govern-

ment is not paying their way. On the contrary, a Treasury Board directive provides that, if they go, they must take leave to do so.

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the debate about the referendum has taken place mostly in Quebec because it is a Quebec referendum.

I certainly agree with the leader of the third party that all Canadians feel personally involved. I am especially happy to see that desire for involvement has finally been met by the huge rally which is presently taking place in Montreal. It shows that all Canadians from every part of the country consider that the choice being made in Quebec is the choice of their own country. That choice affects them personally and is one in which they want to have a voice.

I am proud so many people have found it possible to go to Montreal. They are expressing not only their love for Quebec and their desire to stay together but also their view that Quebecers and the rest of the Canadian population will be able to go through problems in the future much better if they stand together, which is what we hope will happen, than if they divide.

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the leader of the third party that we have to increase the amount of change we are making in this country.

I remind him again that we did program review and the budget downsized the government by 20 per cent. We started to reform the various programs in order to make the federal government more efficient. We indicated very clearly that we want to change and we want to listen to what Canadians tell us.

In terms of the House, I only have to indicate the reforms which have taken place to reduce its costs and increase its efficiency. We hope to continue in that direction.